I don't recall ever reading that ESSM is to be phased out in favor of CIWS guns. It's not likely to happen, either on new build AB's or on the DDX.
054/A FFG Thread II
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
I don't recall ever reading that ESSM is to be phased out in favor of CIWS guns. It's not likely to happen, either on new build AB's or on the DDX.
RAM is actually proliferating still in the US Navy, and with several other countries.
All of the following countries are using and expanding RAM. It is likely there will be more:
US Navy (83 vessels currently, growing to 100 vessels)
Germany (28 vessels currently, growing to 34 vessels)
South Korea (9 vessels currently, growing to 12 vessels)
Greece (5 vessels currently, growing to 7 vessels)
UAE (1 vessel currently, growing to 6 vessels)
Egypt (4 vessels)
Turkey (1 vessel currently, growing to 2 vessels)
Thats 131 vessels now, growing to 165 vessels.
I don't really see why it should be a problem that navies are going to start using guns for CIWS again. They could be used against both small boats and missiles. In the past, I guess people were concerned that something like the 76 mm wouldn't be able to handle supersonic missiles, but I think especially since they have guided munitions now. And with the way that technology is going, it will just be a matter of time before they become reliable enough. Of course, it will also just take several more years after that before they start using laser for close in defense.
If we bring back the discussion to 054A, having a combination of 76 mm main gun and 2 30 mm CIWS should be enough to defend against multiple sea-skimmers provided that the sensors are good enough. I do think that they need to continuously improve on the munitions and the FCR for the 76 mm, so that it will become better against sea-skimmers.
If we bring back the discussion to 054A, having a combination of 76 mm main gun and 2 30 mm CIWS should be enough to defend against multiple sea-skimmers provided that the sensors are good enough. I do think that they need to continuously improve on the munitions and the FCR for the 76 mm, so that it will become better against sea-skimmers.
Ambivalent
Junior Member
The Italians make claims that the Oto-Breda 76 mm Compatto has an anti-cruise missile capability, but the USN certainly cannot back that claim with the Compattos in USN service. There are a lot of reasons for this. Number one, that particular gun is thoroughly unreliable. The USN has had to cut back it's rate of fire to keep it together. At the advertised 120 rounds per minute the mount literally shakes itself apart. The US cut the rate of fire back to 90 rpm, but the gun remains unreliable.
Number two, must EU navies cannot afford to expend targets in tests and exercises the way the USN does. They tend to fly their targets at higher altitudes and accept near misses as a "hit" in their scoring criteria, allowing an intact target to be recovered and reused many more times than is typical of USN targets. The USN flies their targets much lower to the water, which is riskier to the target in rough seas, and destroys them with live fire routinely. Average life span for a target in USN service is 3 1/2 operations. USAF targets last twice as many ops, and other Nato navies targets last even longer. Hence, companies like Oto-Breda make exaggerated claims about their guns based on easier tests conducted at the range in Sardinia. The USN cannot duplicate these results at our ranges with our targets, typically Chukars and Firebees flying at two meters above the water and 500 knot speeds. Mirach 100/4 cannot match the low level performance of a Chukar, particulary the low level maneuvers, so the Italian systems are not tested against as high fidelity a target as the USN does.
RAM is much more effective than any existing gun system, but the 21 round launcher is heavier than CIWS, limiting where it can be mounted on ships ( consider that even the light weight AN/SPG-62 illuminator radar is causing cracking problems in the superstructures of Ticonderoga class cruisers ).
Modern guided ammunition is useless against aerial targets. Most is laser guided, homing on the reflected energy of a coded target designation laser and used against land targets. Such rounds remain largelay untested against moving land targets, so to extrapolate such a round could hit a fast moving missile is a stretch. There is a version of JDAM with laser guidance that can hit some slow moving targets. So far, these rounds could not hit a tank moving near it's top speed. Laser homing in a maritime environment is more difficult than over land due to laser backscatter and atmospheric effects from the humid maritime environment.
The other form of guidance is GPS, great against land targets but useless against a moving target.
Number two, must EU navies cannot afford to expend targets in tests and exercises the way the USN does. They tend to fly their targets at higher altitudes and accept near misses as a "hit" in their scoring criteria, allowing an intact target to be recovered and reused many more times than is typical of USN targets. The USN flies their targets much lower to the water, which is riskier to the target in rough seas, and destroys them with live fire routinely. Average life span for a target in USN service is 3 1/2 operations. USAF targets last twice as many ops, and other Nato navies targets last even longer. Hence, companies like Oto-Breda make exaggerated claims about their guns based on easier tests conducted at the range in Sardinia. The USN cannot duplicate these results at our ranges with our targets, typically Chukars and Firebees flying at two meters above the water and 500 knot speeds. Mirach 100/4 cannot match the low level performance of a Chukar, particulary the low level maneuvers, so the Italian systems are not tested against as high fidelity a target as the USN does.
RAM is much more effective than any existing gun system, but the 21 round launcher is heavier than CIWS, limiting where it can be mounted on ships ( consider that even the light weight AN/SPG-62 illuminator radar is causing cracking problems in the superstructures of Ticonderoga class cruisers ).
Modern guided ammunition is useless against aerial targets. Most is laser guided, homing on the reflected energy of a coded target designation laser and used against land targets. Such rounds remain largelay untested against moving land targets, so to extrapolate such a round could hit a fast moving missile is a stretch. There is a version of JDAM with laser guidance that can hit some slow moving targets. So far, these rounds could not hit a tank moving near it's top speed. Laser homing in a maritime environment is more difficult than over land due to laser backscatter and atmospheric effects from the humid maritime environment.
The other form of guidance is GPS, great against land targets but useless against a moving target.
Interesting account of tests. Re guided munitions, I think people are not referring to the lasrer or GPS guided ones here, but radar guided ones like the DAVIDE/STRALES system developed by OTO-Melara.
Ambivalent
Junior Member
I have to question whether the gun itself can deliver the round with sufficient accuracy for that guidance system to function correctly. I could not get Navweaps page on that system to load up for us to look at, so I suggest you read what Navweaps.com has to say. Likewise, their testing was with inert rounds to their sloppier scoring specifications. The rounds came "close enough" to the target. Hmmm. I would feel better with some live fire testing out at Point Mugu against a stream raid of Chukars and Coyotes. That will sort fact from BS in a big hurry.
in the future, can you not just post links to another thread? Put pictures on here. I'm attaching one for each boat here.
Attachments
-
054AHP4-Nov9.jpg -
571-Nov9.jpg
